Eyman: Public Records Act ‘unconstitutional’

In an amended complaint filed Monday, initiative proponent Tim Eyman argues that the state’s Public Records Act is “unconstitutional to the extent that it requires public disclosure when there is a reasonable probability of threats, harassment, and reprisals.”

On Tuesday lawyers representing Eyman were to face state attorneys before Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks. He was to hear the state’s request that the names of people who signed petitions seeking to have a new, expanded gay rights law overturned be made public. Eyman wants to block the release of names of people who signed his recent petitions, as well.

However the issue has been muddied by Monday’s decision by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to temporarily block the release the names of people who signed petitions to get Referendum 71 on the November ballot. David Ammons, spokesman for Secretary of State Sam Reed, said Monday in a blog post that Kennedy’s ruling “would appear to dispose of the state’s request … Kennedy’s ruling preserves the status quo – nondisclosure.”

Kennedy’s decision stops a federal appeals court ruling last week that ordered the release of the names. Kennedy said his order would remain in effect while he considers a request by a group that asked him to reverse the appeals court ruling.

Eyman filed suit against Secretary of State Sam Reed and Hicks barred the release of petition information from recent Eyman initiatives until the dispute about releasing the names of people who signed R-71 was resolved by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a stay on the release of signatures.

Last month a federal judge blocked the release of names of people who signed R-71. U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle said releasing the names could violate the First Amendment rights of those who signed petitions to get the measure on the ballot. The secretary of state’s office criticized the ruling, saying it was “a step away from open government.”

Gay rights activists want to post the names online, encouraging supporters of same-sex unions to discuss the issue with people they know.

The group Protect Marriage Washington, which collected nearly 138,000 signatures to qualify R-71 for the November ballot, says those people could be harassed, amounting to an infringement on their free speech rights.

Eyman, who makes his living running initiative campaigns, said he went to court because the state was continuing to release initiative petition information, saying a federal court judge’s ruling on R-71 only covered referendums.

Eyman said releasing the names of people who sign initiative petitions would “chill” public participation in government.

In his amended court filing, Eyman’s attorneys say releasing petition information would violate the U.S. and state constitutions.

“Public release of documents showing the names, signatures or home addresses of those individuals who signed petitions violates each petitioner’s constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,” the court filing says. “The U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Washington State Supreme Court have previously held that the initiative process falls within the protections of political speech. Release of documents showing the names, signatures or home addresses operates as a prior restraint in violation of individual fundamental rights to free speech, including anonymous political speech and petition, guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

State officials say they fear if petition information is shielded from public view than other open government laws – like disclosing who contributes to political campaigns – could be challenged.